Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Flags potential legal risks (defamation, privacy, contempt) in story briefs, drafts, or scripts before publication.
npx claudepluginhub ur-grue/autopunk-media-skills --plugin autopunk-media-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/autopunk-media-skills:legal-risk-checkerThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Reviews a story brief, draft article, or broadcast script and flags potential legal risks — including defamation, privacy, contempt of court, and data protection — so you know what to check before publication.
Reviews a draft for defamation risk, flagging problematic passages with plain-language explanations and suggested editorial actions. Useful before publishing content that names individuals or organizations.
Guides academic legal writing for law review articles and seminar papers following Volokh's style; enforces template use and proper citation practices.
Assesses and classifies legal risks using severity-by-likelihood matrix for contracts, deals, issue severity, and escalation to senior counsel.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Reviews a story brief, draft article, or broadcast script and flags potential legal risks — including defamation, privacy, contempt of court, and data protection — so you know what to check before publication.
Required:
Optional:
A structured report in three sections, approximately 400–600 words.
Legal Categories Engaged — a short list noting which areas of law are relevant to this story and which are not, with one-sentence rationale for each.
Risk Flags — a bulleted list. Each flag identifies: the specific passage or claim that creates the risk, the legal category, the risk level (Low / Medium / High), and a plain-English explanation of what the exposure means in practice.
Pre-Publication Checklist — a numbered list of actions to take before publication. Items are specific and ordered by urgency. The final item always states whether the overall risk profile warrants mandatory legal review before publishing.
Tone: direct, professional, non-alarmist. Written for a journalist or editor, not a lawyer. Legal concepts are explained in plain language the first time they appear.
Story summary: A regional news outlet is preparing to publish a story about a local property developer. The story alleges that the developer submitted planning applications containing false information about site ownership and that a council planning officer approved applications despite a personal financial connection to the developer. Named individuals: the developer (a private businessman) and the named planning officer (a public employee acting in an official capacity). Evidence held: two planning application documents obtained via freedom of information, an anonymous source within the council, and a company register entry showing a shared business interest. The developer was contacted and declined to comment. The planning officer has not been contacted yet. The story is for a regional news website, UK publication. No known legal proceedings underway.
Legal Categories Engaged
Risk Flags
Allegation of false statements in planning applications — developer — High risk. Alleging that a named private individual submitted false documents is a serious factual claim. The evidence base (FOI documents and company register) supports the financial connection but may not directly prove the developer knew the information was false or submitted it with intent. If the allegation goes beyond what the documents demonstrate, there is a significant defamation exposure. Right of reply was offered and declined — this is a mitigating factor, but does not eliminate risk.
Allegation against the planning officer — Medium risk. Public officials have a reduced expectation of protection when acting in their official capacity, and public interest in planning corruption is well-established. However, the planning officer has not yet been given the opportunity to respond. Publishing without offering a right of reply substantially increases legal and regulatory risk.
Sole anonymous source — Medium risk. The financial connection (shared business interest) is corroborated by documentary evidence. The allegation that the officer "approved applications despite knowing the connection" rests in part on the anonymous source. If the source's account cannot be independently verified, publishing it as established fact rather than as an allegation carries defamation risk.
Source identification risk — Low to Medium risk. If the anonymous source is one of a small number of people with access to the information they disclosed, publication of the story's details may inadvertently identify them. This is an ethical and legal obligation — consider whether any detail in the story narrows down who the source could be.
Pre-Publication Checklist